Date: Tue, 12 Mar 96 8:20:23 MET From: Greg Lehey <lehey.pad@sni.de> To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org (Hackers; FreeBSD) Subject: Re: using ddb to debug a double-panic? Message-ID: <199603120723.IAA19225@nixpbe.pdb.sni.de> In-Reply-To: <621.826609907@time.cdrom.com>; from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Mar 11, 96 9:51 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> >Does anybody object to >> >emacs-style only, if the cursor functions work? >> >> Of course everyone would object :-). Mine uses wordstar style control >> keys and cursor keys for editing and Turbo Debugger style function keys > > I still think that some standards are good, and the emacs characters > have become something of a defacto standard for editing and history > manipulation. I've seen the emacs bindings in everything from bash to > the Motif text widget (as well as many others) and think that we should > follow suit. I don't know about you guys, but ^P and ^N are now wired > directly into my fingers! :-) I've come in on the end of this. This horrible thing that passes for a mail system here has swallowed a day's worth of mail again, and didn't even regurgitate it. If anybody else has sent opinions, please resend them. Seriously, Bruce (or anybody else): what kind of editing? The main objection I have to vi-style editing in shells is that it is so ESC-intensive. I suspect it's also more difficult to program, though I don't suppose that's the real problem. If anybody has any alternatives to emacs-style bindings, please let me know a detailed description of how it should work. Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603120723.IAA19225>